Neg #'s in 3 yo season

[jimbo66]

TGJB,

Just for the record, you are making a different point than I am, with regards to Emollient.

I am not saying her running big a week later makes more or less sense based on the GP figure.

What I am saying is that her trainer, who rarely, if ever, runs on a week\'s rest, pretty clearly interpreted the Gulfstream effort as a non-effort, which is why he ran her back in a week.  Mott is not Rudi or Dutrow.  If Billy Mott thought like you did, that his horse \"paired up\" in the Gulfstream race, matching his win the previous race, I sincerely doubt that he runs her back in a week.  

And I am pretty sure, based on Mott\'s history, that I am right about that.

It doesn\'t mean that I am right about your figure, it just means that Mott interpreted her effort like I did, and like many others on this board have also done.  

Jim

[jimbo66]

I was wondering, with the membership space created by the ban of Sightsound, can we invite Class Handicapper back?  And maybe Chuckles the Clown?  

Good luck,

Jim

[TGJB]

Many people say many derogatory things on this site, often about me. I let it go unless it crosses a line (which I can\'t always define) or happens too often. One way I know I must be doing something right is several people seem to think I\'m picking on only them.

I actually didn\'t notice the Muff thing (I read the post quickly) until someone wrote to me about it, by which time other posts pushed it down. It probably did cross the line.

The content of Sight\'s posts were a problem because she wasn\'t couching what she said as opinion, but it wasn\'t just that. She had lots of chances to make it right and refused. And even after that all she had to do was not post for three months, I wasn\'t looking to ban her and I liked having a vet here. But this is not a public park-- it\'s a privately owned website. I first said here I would ban her if she didn\'t correct what she said, then moderated it to a suspension. But when after being told not to post for 3 months she turned right around and put up three of them in 5 minutes (two of which I took down) she gave me no choice.

[TGJB]

She got beat 100 lengths, yes he thought it was a non-effort. He doesn\'t use sheets.

[TGJB]

You just get one, choose.

[Caradoc]

As I said, your board, your rules.  But, if you read JohnTChance\'s post too quickly or carelessly initially, what about now?  The post is still up.  You acknowledge that it "probably did cross the line."  You have a chance now to tell us now in a very direct way whether that is acceptable on your board.  At the bare (and I mean bare) minimum, you can disavow it.  It is hard to imagine that a serious and well-informed female in the industry (say, Mary Scollay) would be inclined to participate in this forum knowing that type of language and address is tolerated, even encouraged -- not only have you not reprimanded the poster or taken his post down, in fact you have invited him to post further thoughts.  Again, that will undermine everything you said you wanted to achieve in the very first post on the other string.

[Rich Curtis]

I talked myself out on this subject a few years ago. If I were to start on it again, the first time someone responded by Redboarding some longshots he supposedly had recently and put this pathetic, infantile drivel forward as evidence that the situation is not that dire, it would start a chain of events that would probably leave me in purgatory with Sighthound.

[TGJB]

Should be gone. And as William Powell said in The Thin Man, this is interrupting my drinking.

[P-Dub]

Rich Curtis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I talked myself out on this subject a few years
> ago. If I were to start on it again, the first
> time someone responded by Redboarding some
> longshots he supposedly had recently and put this
> pathetic, infantile drivel forward as evidence
> that the situation is not that dire, it would
> start a chain of events that would probably leave
> me in purgatory with Sighthound.


Instead of coming off like an arrogant jerk, try comprehending what I said. Which was the following.

There are enough races throughout the country that I don\'t worry about who \"might\" be \"cheating\". I find value and bet.  Maybe you\'re the type that trumpets nailing a $7 horse. I don\'t know.

Nothing supposedly about it, I was making a point. If you\'re going to run around paranoid about possible cheating, then why play?? Your paranoia doesn\'t affect everybody. It doesn\'t affect me.

Pathetic, Infantile drivel??  Who the bleep are you?? If you want to trade insults, you found the right person. I don\'t care if you disagree, but no reason to sound like a dick.

[Rich Curtis]

PDub wrote:

\"Maybe you\'re the type that trumpets nailing a $7 horse. I don\'t know.\"

Right. You would have no way of knowing.